What's interesting is that the yellowcake was sold to Canada in secret. Why the secrecy? I'll leave you all with these thoughts. If Bush lied us into war, why didn't he lie us into finding WMDs? Surely there's some overzealous Ollie North types who could have been recruited to plant the stuff. Heck, a single test tube of weaponized biological material would have settled the issue with 100% certainty. Instead, every instance of found WMDs were downplayed almost immediately by the administration - to the point people don't get it that he had all kinds of WMDs. Seems the administration was interested in the truth because it outright said "these aren't WMDs" when the claim would pop up that some were found. Nukes and chemical weapons are the shock and awe of WMDs. The mass killer of WMDs is the biological kind. Some suicide bomber type who would be willing to take an injection of some infectious disease and get on an airplane to Heathrow could end up spreading the infection to most of the western world in short order. A nuke might kill 10M people in a city like NYC; chemical weapons, similar effect; but the biological ones could kill a billion people or more. Saddam used WMDs on his own people. I've seen the pictures and they are both gory and sickening, particularly of mothers dying with infants also dying in their arms. The threat from Iraq wasn't exactly imminent. Neither was 9/11.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 6 2008, 08:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Denny, there's a space between having the means and motivation to create WMD's and actually possessing them that you don't seem to acknowledge. I agree with almost everything you've posted in this thread. But I don't agree with this whole notion that those original claims are completely vindicated by this news. They claimed that there were WMD's. They've yet to find them. Those claims aren't vindicated. I don't think I can put it any clearer than that. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real)</div><div class='quotemain'>At the same time, I wonder if I'm going to see this tomorrow on the network TV evening news? Nah, probably not, the focus will probably be on gas prices and the economy, or the wildfires out in CA. I wonder if I'm going to see this discussed on CNN or MSNBC? Nah probably not. They'll be talking about McCain vs. Obama. I wonder if I'm going to see this on Countdown with Keith Olber-ah nevermind.</div> I honestly don't understand what the big fuss is about this news. If you follow the other information Denny's posted, this story doesn't really prove anything that we didn't already know (ie: that they had the means and motivation to create WMD's). </div> "Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions." The article goes on from there. FOUND. Massive quantities of the stuff. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Caches of "commercial and agricultural" chemicals don't match the expectation of "stockpiles" of chemical weapons. But, in fact, that is precisely what they are. "At a very minimum," Hanson tells Insight, "they were storing the precursors to restart a chemical-warfare program very quickly." "Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up," Hanson says. "It seems Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that 'no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.'"</div>
Then what exactly is the big fuss about this news story? Why even point to it as vindication when the claims have already been vindicated?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 6 2008, 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Then what exactly is the big fuss about this news story? Why even point to it as vindication when the claims have already been vindicated?</div> My point is any good news about the Iraq war is ignored by the mainstream press. Here's a question. Since the troop surge, what is the no. 1 story being covered in America right now?
The article speaks for itself. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion. ... The yellowcake issue also is one of the many troubling footnotes of the war for Washington. A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, claimed her identity was leaked to journalists to retaliate against her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellowcake from Niger. A federal investigation led to the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.</div> However, it also contradicts itself: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" - a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material - it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.</div> vs. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>"The big problem comes with any inhalation of any of the yellowcake dust," said Doug Brugge, a professor of public health issues at the Tufts University School of Medicine.</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 6 2008, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 6 2008, 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Then what exactly is the big fuss about this news story? Why even point to it as vindication when the claims have already been vindicated?</div> My point is any good news about the Iraq war is ignored by the mainstream press. Here's a question. Since the troop surge, what is the no. 1 story being covered in America right now? </div> Maybe its just the nature of the news to emphasize bad/depressing news. I don't know, that's the vibe I usually get from it. You listed stuff that's getting more coverage now than stuff in Iraq, and its all basically negative. I'm not going to pretend like I know the answer though. You very well could be right (about media bias or whatever).
The secrecy of the sale and extraction is easy to explain. The entire process had to be secure to minimize attempts at hijacking it. On to the other topic. What was the exact wording of the Bush administration about the presence of WMD as a pretense for invasion? It has been too long and there has been too much media crap for me to recall.
http://www.factcheck.org/iraq/anti-war_ad_...y_rumsfeld.html (for one) Excerpts of Bush's 2003 State of the Union Speech. He cites UN reports, IAEA reports, and the now famous 16 words where he cited a British intelligence report. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030128-19.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bush)</div><div class='quotemain'>The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.</div> However, a strong theme in the speech is that Saddam either refused to disarm or account for the WMDs that were cataloged and known about. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups. We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)</div> He provided (I counted 6) varying reasons to take out Saddam, including human rights violations (torture, rape, etc): <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)</div> Another reason - to liberate the Iraqi people: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)</div> And another reason - to spread democracy and freedom: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. (Applause.)</div> And another reason - to establish a long lasting peace: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.) And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)</div> Then there's this speech: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (William Jefferson Clinton)</div><div class='quotemain'>Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down. Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN. When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. ... The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.</div> ^^^ Bill Clinton in 1998 Now, it makes me wonder who the liars really were. Remember Hans Blix? Here's what he said in January of 2003, shortly before the invasion: http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives/009954.php <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>That, at least, has been the presumption of Hans Blix. Go back and take a look at the report Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported there existed "no convincing evidence" they had ever been destroyed. On the contrary, he said, there was "strong evidence" that Iraq had produced even more anthrax than it had declared "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspection team had "information that conflicts" with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqi government claimed that it had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and therefore the agent was never "weaponized." But according to Blix, the inspection team discovered that the Iraqi government had lied. The Iraqi government's own documents showed that the quality and purity of the VX were better than declared and, according to the inspection team, there were "indications that the agent" had indeed been "weaponized." Blix reported as well that 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing still remained unaccounted for. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to the U.N. Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."</div> And so on.
I dont believe that Bush did anything unethical....his intel reports told him that Saddam Hussein had WMDs stored in Iraq....History told him that he had used WMD during earlier conflicts(mustard gas on Kurds is confirmed)....when instructed to surrender his WMD, Saddam Hussein did not claim that he didnt have them, he simply refused to discuss it or allow inspectors....dont forget that not all intel can be legit, and its hard to tell whats real....the president was told a genecidal maniac had WMDs, he made the decision to go in, CONGRESS approved the action, and we did....in the course of months, the war was won, the dictator was removed and imprisoned to await trial....he was convicted of crimes against humanity by his own people and later executed....whether they find WMDs or not, whats the problem? everything was done above table....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 6 2008, 06:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>cough, cough....vindicated....cough</div> How pathetic trying to justify the greatest debacle in US Foreign policy & Military History. Just because I have aluminum siding on my house doesn't mean I have a six pack of Dr Pepper in the fridge. Another way, I may have cookie dough in the fridge, it doesn't mean I live in a bakery.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thoth @ Jul 24 2008, 02:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 6 2008, 06:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>cough, cough....vindicated....cough</div> How pathetic trying to justify the greatest debacle in US Foreign policy & Military History. Just because I have aluminum siding on my house doesn't mean I have a six pack of Dr Pepper in the fridge. Another way, I may have cookie dough in the fridge, it doesn't mean I live in a bakery. </div> How is Iraq in any way worse than Vietnam?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thoth @ Jul 24 2008, 02:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 6 2008, 06:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>cough, cough....vindicated....cough</div> How pathetic trying to justify the greatest debacle in US Foreign policy & Military History. Just because I have aluminum siding on my house doesn't mean I have a six pack of Dr Pepper in the fridge. Another way, I may have cookie dough in the fridge, it doesn't mean I live in a bakery. </div> That is quite possibly the most horrible analogy I've ever heard. Congrats.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thoth @ Jul 24 2008, 02:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 6 2008, 06:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>cough, cough....vindicated....cough</div> How pathetic trying to justify the greatest debacle in US Foreign policy & Military History. Just because I have aluminum siding on my house doesn't mean I have a six pack of Dr Pepper in the fridge. Another way, I may have cookie dough in the fridge, it doesn't mean I live in a bakery. </div> If you had 500 metric tons of cookie dough in your fridge, you would be hard pressed to convince me you werent planning on doing some serious baking....or that you had the munchies....
I might be in the drive thru line at Burger King, but that doesn't mean I'm getting a burger.... Saddam had WMD's, doesn't mean they were in Iraq from 2002-2003. Maybe they got moved??
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Claims were made by the Bush and Blair adminstrations and their spin-doctors that Saddam Hussein was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) which he might deploy at any time within 45 minutes. In September 2002, the Blair Government prepared a dossier to that effect for public consumption allegedly based on intelligence collected by MI6, their intelligence agency. The Bush administration relied upon this British intelligence in addition to their own. Further, the CIA is supposed to have collected intelligence that Saddam Hussein was engaged in procuring uranium from an African country so that he could refine the same and manufacture nuclear weapons. All these claims were being made when a team of Inspectors working in Iraq and headed by Hans Blix and Mohammed al Baredie, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a watchdog body, said they could not find any "smoking gun". A plea by Hans Blix for more time was ignored by the Bush and Blair administrations which were eager to start the war. Recently, Paul O?€™Neil, former US Treasury Secretary, who was once on Bush?€™s National Security Team announced that he (O?€™Neil) never saw any evidence of Iraqi WMD. Instead, he said, Bush had been "gunning for Saddam Hussein since the day he took office". A team known as Iraq Survey Group (ISG) of 1200 personnel including 400 scientists headed by David Kay was deputed by the Bush Administration to trace Saddam?€™s WMD. The ISG carried out its search for nine months but the result was nil. Kay therefore tendered his resignation from the ISG out of disgust on the specific ground there were no WMDs in Iraq.</div> http://www.iheu.org/node/1177 Well one could say we stretched certain conclusions. I can assure you we probably did not expect to waste so much money on this war either.
Empirical numbers of War: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>For your quick reading, I've listed key statistics about the Iraq War, taken primarily from data analyzed by various think tanks, including The Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, and from mainstream media sources. Data is presented as of July 16, 2008, except as indicated. U.S. SPENDING IN IRAQ Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $600 billion of US taxpayers' funds. In June 2008, President Bush signed a bill approving about 200 billion more for 2008, which will bring the cumulative total to close to $800 billion. U.S. Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion in 2008 U.S. Spending per Second - $5,000 in 2008 (per Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on May 5, 2008) Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (Congressional Research Service) Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles. Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News on Dec 6, 2007.) Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion Number of major U.S. bases in Iraq - 75 (The Nation/New York Times) TROOPS IN IRAQ Iraqi Troops Trained and Able to Function Independent of U.S. Forces - 6,000 as of May 2007 (per NBC's "Meet the Press" on May 20, 2007) Troops in Iraq - Total 154,372, including 145,000 from the US, 4,000 from the UK, 2,000 from Georgia, 900 from Poland, 650 from South Korea and 1,822 from all other nations U.S. Troop Casualties - 4,122 US troops; 98% male. 90% non-officers; 80% active duty, 12% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 10% African-American, 11% Latino. 18% killed by non-hostile causes. 51% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 70% were from the US Army Non-U.S. Troop Casualties - Total 313, with 176 from the UK US Troops Wounded - 30,409, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries (total excludes psychological injuries) US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems - 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home US Military Helicopters Downed in Iraq - 68 total, at least 36 by enemy fire IRAQI TROOPS, CIVILIANS & OTHERS IN IRAQ Private Contractors in Iraq, Working in Support of US Army Troops - More than 180,000 in August 2007, per The Nation/LA Times. Journalists killed - 129, 85 by murder and 44 by acts of war Journalists killed by US Forces - 14 Iraqi Police and Soldiers Killed - 8,461 Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualties have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000. Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated - 55,000 Non-Iraqi Contractors and Civilian Workers Killed - 554 Non-Iraqi Kidnapped - 306, including 57 killed, 147 released, 4 escaped, 6 rescued and 89 status unknown. Daily Insurgent Attacks, Feb 2004 - 14 Daily Insurgent Attacks, July 2005 - 70 Daily Insurgent Attacks, May 2007 - 163 Estimated Insurgency Strength, Nov 2003 - 15,000 Estimated Insurgency Strength, Oct 2006 - 20,000 - 30,000 Estimated Insurgency Strength, June 2007 - 70,000 QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS Iraqis Displaced Inside Iraq, by Iraq War, as of May 2007 - 2,255,000 Iraqi Refugees in Syria & Jordan - 2.1 million to 2.25 million Iraqi Unemployment Rate - 27 to 60%, where curfew not in effect Consumer Price Inflation in 2006 - 50% Iraqi Children Suffering from Chronic Malnutrition - 28% in June 2007 (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007) Percent of professionals who have left Iraq since 2003 - 40% Iraqi Physicians Before 2003 Invasion - 34,000 Iraqi Physicians Who Have Left Iraq Since 2005 Invasion - 12,000 Iraqi Physicians Murdered Since 2003 Invasion - 2,000 Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 1 to 2 hours, per Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (Per Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2007) Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 10.9 in May 2007 Average Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 5.6 in May 2007 Pre-War Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 16 to 24 Number of Iraqi Homes Connected to Sewer Systems - 37% Iraqis without access to adequate water supplies - 70% (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007) Water Treatment Plants Rehabilitated - 22% RESULTS OF POLL Taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense (Source: Brookings Institute) Iraqis "strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops - 82% Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security - less than 1% Iraqis who feel less ecure because of the occupation - 67% Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces - 72%</div> http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsec...IraqNumbers.htm
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 24 2008, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I might be in the drive thru line at Burger King, but that doesn't mean I'm getting a burger.... Saddam had WMD's, doesn't mean they were in Iraq from 2002-2003. Maybe they got moved??</div> Look to Syria. I've been saying that since 2002...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Why McCain Should Embrace Withdrawal Ilan Goldenberg Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's support for a timetable for the withdrawal of American combat forces has created a political firestorm in the United States with most of the commentary focused on how his statements reinforce Barack Obama's policies. John McCain and other proponents of a continued large U.S. presence in Iraq have dismissed Maliki's position as unimportant, arguing that it is "only" the result of the domestic political pressures inside Iraq. McCain is right that this is ultimately about Iraqi domestic politics. But insurgencies and counterinsurgency strategies are, at their very core, all about domestic politics. A close study of the Army's own Counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine suggests that the Maliki government's position should be recognized as an important and positive development. It signals the beginning of the end of the Iraq War as the American military takes on an increasingly smaller role while handing off more responsibility to the Iraqi Security Forces and withdrawing. Despite confusion and various halfhearted retractions from Iraqi politicians and attempted explanations by the White House, it is apparent that Maliki's statements represent a sea change inside Iraq. There is today a consensus within the Iraq body politic for setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American combat forces. The Iraqi public is overwhelmingly supportive of an American withdrawal. Muqtada al Sadr and other opponents of Maliki's coalition have always called for a withdrawal and made it one of the cornerstones of their political platform. Two weeks ago Maliki expressed similar views only pulling back after pressure from the White House. Iraq's National Security Advisor Mouwaffak al-Rubaie and Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi both reaffirmed this position in recent weeks and Maliki's spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh stated authoritatively on Monday that "We can't give any schedules or dates, but the Iraqi government sees the suitable date for withdrawal of the U.S. forces is by the end of 2010." In fact, even the Bush administration has accepted this reality and is now negotiating "time horizons" as part of an agreement that will govern the legal status of American forces in Iraq. It is hard to imagine how these developments won't reshape or at least dramatically influence the military's COIN strategy in Iraq According to Army COIN Field Manual, written by General David Petraeus and considered the definitive work on the subject, "Political power is the central issue in insurgencies and counterinsurgencies; each side aims to get the people to accept its governance or authority as legitimate." The government and the insurgents are in a competition for the support of the public and whichever side is able to provide security and basic services and govern legitimately is going to prevail. Iraq is more complicated than the average insurgency because, in addition to Sunni insurgents, the central government has had to deal with various Shi'a militias, al Qaeda in Iraq and other non-state actors. However, when dealing with all these groups the basic formula remains the same: security, services, and legitimacy. In this context the United States must listen to the Iraqi government's demands or risk endangering the gains that have been made during the past 18 months. Over that time the Iraqi government and its security forces have increasingly taken a more central role in providing security and have increased their legitimacy in the eyes of the people. However, one of the key elements still working against them is the heavy dependence on the U.S. military presence, which is highly unpopular inside Iraq. Thus, Maliki's recent declaration was not, as John McCain would have you believe, just the Iraqi government playing politics. Instead, it was a genuine attempt by the Iraqi government to increase its legitimacy with its people -- a critical element of counterinsurgency. One of the main factors limiting the Iraqi government’s credibility with its own people is its complete dependence on the United States. Maliki's declarations were meant to limit that perception and shore up domestic support. After coming out so strongly and publicly for a gradual American withdrawal, the Maliki government has made it all but impossible to walk back. If it were to now sign an agreement that did not include some specific target dates for withdrawal or that tried to preserve the permanent South Korea-like presence that John McCain has long advocated, it would be seen by its own people as a weak American puppet instead of the legitimate government that it must become. This could in turn lead to a dramatic opening for opponents of the government. For example, Muqtada Al Sadr, who has already used opposition to the U.S. military presence to his political advantage and still has the capacity to mobilize large numbers of Mehdi Army militiamen to fight on his behalf, could at some point decide to forgo political bargaining and return to fighting. Similarly, the former Sunni insurgents now known as the Sons of Iraq are currently cooperating with the U.S. military against Al Qaeda in Iraq. However, they still distrust the Maliki Government which has been slow to integrate them into the Iraqi Security Forces and may at some point choose to turn against the central government. A government that is seen as a complete puppet of the United States would find itself in a weakened position -- unable to garner the necessary support against these types of threats. Petraeus's counterinsurgency manual also makes clear the Iraqi Government's desire for a timeline should be seen as an important step forward: "The long-term goal is to leave a government able to stand by itself. In the end, the host nation has to win on its own. ... Eventually all foreign armies are seen as interlopers or occupiers; the sooner the main effort can transition to Host Nation institutions, without unacceptable degradation, the better." Of course, it is quite likely that, buoyed by its recent successes, the Maliki Government is overestimating its own capabilities and the U.S. should take care to withdraw carefully in a way that minimizes the likelihood of the situation deteriorating. But with that caveat in place, counterinsurgency doctrine dictates that this assertion of independence is an important step. It should be welcomed -- not derided as political posturing or suppressed by a White House seeking a permanent presence in Iraq. In the end, COIN doctrine tells us that Prime Minister Maliki's recent assertions are a crucial turning point as Iraqis being to declare their own independence. This moment should be seized on to begin transitioning to a more limited mission that acts to support the Iraqis instead of taking the lead, and which requires a much smaller U.S. force presence. This is the position that Barack Obama has had all along. John McCain would be wise to accept this new reality and move to Obama's position, instead of continuing to reject the major breakthrough that has occurred.</div> http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articl...race_withdrawal
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 02:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Right. But if you have a billion gallons of insect poison, you do have WMDs.</div> If you have a couple of chemicals that can be purchased from a farmers COOP, you can build a WMD. Timothy McVeigh used a WMD on an Oklahoma building using commonly attainable materials, that did not require the level of equipment needed to produce a nuclear bomb out of Uranium cake. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Saddam’s supply of yellowcake has been secretly sold to a Canadian energy firm and flown safely to Montreal. In a Monday June 9, 2003 file photo, UN inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) work at the nuclear facility in Tuwaitha, Iraq, 50 kms east of Baghdad. The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein\'s nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday, July 5, 2008, to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans. (AP Photo/Saurabh Das, file) The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans. The removal of 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions. [...] While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called “dirty bomb” - a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material - it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment. [...] Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam’s nuclear efforts. Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. <u>There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991</u>, the official said. Daniel De Groot notes that “this uranium a) was not weapons grade and b) was well known to the UN and IAEA and was being stored legally by Saddam’s government. It was legally in Iraq according to international law.” Barbara O’Brien adds, “The critical point is that Saddam Hussein couldn’t do anything with this uranium because he lacked the equipment and technology to enrich it. So it had been sitting around for years in drums sealed by the IAEA. No nuclear program.” Here’s an extensive listings of IAEA Key Findings on Iraq’s Nuclear Program, listing extensively the materials we knew about before the invasion. I’d add that the key line from the AP report is, “<u>There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991</u>.” So, while Joe Wilson may have lied about many things, the movement of yellowcake from more than a decade before his infamous fact finding trip isn’t evidence of a new one.</div> Vindication? WMD's? Neither.
